Marco Rubio Needs to Travel More. Seriously. [Updated and lightly edited.]
I lifted that quote from a Politico article by Jonathan Martin that went on to say that Rubio left school with more than $100,000 in student-loan debt, which he finished paying off only a few months ago. Presumably, those loans were government-sponsored. Although maybe at the age of 18, he had some collateral to offer the bank.
Rubio’s parents, like so many of his working-class neighbors now, emigrated from Cuba before 2001, when the first of the two sets of Bush tax cuts were passed. Apparently, he hasn’t checked the federal income tax rates on individuals and corporations when his parents and his neighbors came here because they were stuck in poverty in countries where the government dominated the economy. Because, best as I can tell, that comment about immigrants from countries where the government dominated the economy was intended as a warning about Obama’s and the congressional Democrats’ plans to have the government dominate the economy.
So I’d like some specifics. What policies and programs, current and proposed, does he have in mind? Exactly? Maybe next time he’s interviewed by some high-profile journalist, he’ll be asked that. And maybe he’ll answer. But I doubt it.
Anyway, for now, I’m left to speculate that he means raising tax rates to Clinton-era tax levels for people with non-investment incomes above $250,000 a year, and on corporations, and on investment income. He also might mean Obamacare, but that’s questionable unless he thinks that only people who qualify for Medicare get cancer or other serious illnesses, because he also said this last night:
But the title of this post suggests that Rubio travel more. Both within this country and outside of it. First he should visit communities where immigrants from, say, Pakistan and Central America live. People who came here to escape poverty but whose homeland governments did not, and do not, dominate the economy.*
Then, if he has a passport, he might consider traveling outside the United States. Maybe to Canada, or Germany, or Sweden, or Holland, or Australia. Or France. Or, for that matter, Singapore. Or Taiwan. Or he could save the plane fare and just use the Internet to check the rates of poverty in those countries, the tax rates there, the social safety nets there, the education systems there, the healthcare systems there.
I didn’t watch the Rubio Show last night, so I missed the reaching-for-a-water-bottle-but-wishing-it-were-a-Vodka-bottle-instead moment. I wish I’d watched, but I didn’t. So I’m relying on tidbits reported by others. And Paul Krugman provides one that, unlike the quotes above, have not garnered much attention. It’s this:
Krugman points out that numerous studies, as well as observation by, say, ordinary folks, dispel that claim. Specifically, Krugman writes:
So I guess I was wrong when I said above that Rubio must have had only tax rates and Obamacare in mind. He apparently also had finance-industry regulation in mind, too. And on this he was specific.
But on this too, I suggest some overseas travel–either physically, or virtually, on the Internet. He’d learn that Spain, Ireland and Iceland must have had a Fannie Mae and a Freddie Mac. Not to mention a Barney Frank. Because those countries’ current and recent fiscal and economic woes were caused entirely by a housing bubbles virtually identical to, or worse than, ours, spurred by Deregulation, the explosive growth of virtually unregulated shadow banking, lax lending standards by loan originators who sold their loans off as soon as they were made.
Then Rubio might consider returning to Canada and Germany, physically or virtually, and checking out why those countries had little or no such bubble. And before he leaves, or after he returns, he should travel to Texas. Yes, Texas, of all states. It had almost no housing bubble. Something to do with government involvement in the economy, i.e., legislation regulating the mortgage industry, post-savings-and-loan debacle, circa 1989. State government, in this case.
What is the national debt of Canada and Germany? And the poverty levels and standards of living in those countries?
The Politico article, by the way, is called “Marco Rubio as the anti-Romney.” The title of Krugman’s post indicates disagreement with that assessment. It’s called “Marco Rubio Has Learned Nothing.”
But a majority of Americans, I think, have. They’ve learned that you can’t judge a book by it’s jacket cover. And that ideology can’t substitute for fact.
UPDATE: Oh, dear. As I said, I didn’t watch Rubio last night. I also haven’t read a transcript of his speech. And I didn’t know until just now, when I read Jazzbumpa’s post below, that Rubio said that proposals to deal with climate change, including trying to slow its progression, are attempts to have the government “control the weather.”
Um. Yeah. That’s the idea.
Yikes.
—-
UPDATE II: I’m getting the strong feeling that there are a lot of people who are downright dumbfounded by that speech last night–that this guy who’s being touted as the Republican savior went on national television and established himself as stunningly stupid.
We’re going to elect a global warming denier as president in 2016? We’re going to elect as president someone who is unaware of such things as financial derivatives, and the role they played in the financial meltdown? We’re going to elect as president someone who seems not to know that student loans and Medicare are government programs–or at least what it means that they are? We’re going to elect as president someone who thinks Clinton-era tax rates are a government-dominated economy?
I’ll certainly agree that he’s no Romney. Romney isn’t stupid, by any stretch. He just pretended to be. With Rubio, it’s apparently no act.
—-
*Paragraph edited for clarity. 2/14. (I figured that since this post is getting a decent number of “hits” and Google+ links, it should be edited so that typos and such are corrected.)
Travel will not enlighten Mr. Rubio. It is clear form his rant that he has no interest in facts, data, logic, or anything else that resembles reality. So don’t expect him to learn anything.
He simply spews hard-right talking points, pandering to an already converted base.
What a waste of time, breath, water, and for that matter, protoplasm.
JzB
I’m getting the strong feeling that there are a lot of people who are downright dumbfounded by that speech last night–that this guy who’s being touted as the Republican savior went on national television and established himself as stunningly stupid.
We’re going to elect a global warming denier as president in 2016? We’re going to elect someone as president who is unaware of such things as financial derivatives, and the role they played in the financial meltdown? We’re going to elect someone as president who seems not to know that student loans and Medicare are government programs–or at least what it means that they are? We’re going to elect someone as president who thinks Clinton-era tax rates are a government-dominated economy?
I’ll certainly agree that he’s no Romney. Romney isn’t stupid, by any stretch. He just pretended to be. With Rubio, it’s apparently no act.
Also, Marco is being disingenuous when he says he still lives in Miami, since he has his house on the market and is in the process of moving his family inside the beltway.
https://twitter.com/BlogWood/status/301692959789821952
well, i don’t know if rubio is genuinely stupid or not.
my guess is that the political handlers have discovered that it is easier to “handle” and to get elected someone who can say stupid things spontaneously because he believes them.
remember George W Bush.
and, I am afraid to say, Mr O… who gives a hell of a speech but appears to know nothing about “policy” or even care all that much.
my guess is that the big money boys heard O’s speech to the Dem Natl Convention and said… I think we can elect this boy, lets see if we can manage him…
Jazz,
clear to you perhaps, and even to me..
but not at all clear to the 47% who voted for Romney, and I would guess not necessarily clear to the 3% that made the difference..
given a change in the wind, a better run campaign, a little election fixing… nah, don’t count on any sea change in american politics.
christ, even Stalin could probably have won an election… as recently as 1998.
Headline from Huffpost Business
Bankers Giddy After SOTU Speech
President Barack Obama’s failure to mention financial reform during Tuesday night’s State of the Union address is a disappointing setback that shows the White House has lost interest in the topic, advocates working to curb fraud on Wall Street told The Huffington Post.
“I was extremely disappointed by this sort of notion [that] we can just turn the page on the financial crisis,” said Neil Barofsky, a former special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program who has been active in advocating for financial reform since leaving government service. Continue reading…
BM -“We’re going to elect a global warming denier as president in 2016? We’re going to elect as president someone who is unaware of such things as financial derivatives, and the role they played in the financial meltdown? We’re going to elect as president someone who seems not to know that student loans and Medicare are government programs–or at least what it means that they are? We’re going to elect as president someone who thinks Clinton-era tax rates are a government-dominated economy?”
Beverly, I’m sorry, but my first thought on reading this was, “George Bush was elected (ok, selected). But he held office for two terms, so somebody was dumb enough to vote for him.
This is the type of attitude and level of engagement I was referring to earlier, that I see all around me. The old, “Don’t confuse me with the facts, just dazzle me with the bullshit”, as my old friend, Diane, used to say.
I wish I had your confidence in the American people, but I don’t.
The Canadian housing bubble is worse than ours was. Checkout the “greaterfool” website.
Sandi, I too wish Obama had talked about financial regulation beyond just the sentence or two early in the speech.
I am aware of the very serious concerns about the Canadian housing market, which does appear to be a bubble, wkwillis. I mentioned Canada, though, because it’s housing market didn’t collapse when ours and Spain’s, Ireland’s and Iceland’s did, and it still hasn’t. The Canadian market and banks, unlike the European ones involved in the collapse, don’t seem to be connected with derivatives in the same way that ours and the European ones were.
But, according to an article I just read on the CBC News site after googling the subject, it looks like the Canadian banks are feeding the frenzy crazily. Which sounds to me like an argument for more, not less, regulation, and which certainly doesn’t support a Fannie-Freddie-were-the-culprits-in-our-bubble scenario.
The CBC article is at http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2012/04/16/f-vp-pittis.html.
I really wish AB Comments threads weren’t used as spam outlets.
now, Beverly
the Spam filters do a very good job of stopping my comments.
Beverly just e-mail me, Dan and Ken. Or just me. I delete pure commercial spam as I see it. But am happy to make a special trip on request.
And Dale you know better, or should. AB has periodically had spam filters set to particular names and other I’d indicators, in particular in relation to the Commenter Who Must Not Be Named, because simply using his name in a comment at one point meant oblivion. But I am not aware of any auto blocks today (though Dan may have some silently running).
The fact is that even the best blog comment systems suck from time to time and stuff just gets swept up inadvertently.
I cleaned up this thread at Dale’s implicit request in two stages, first to delete the comments and then to erase the traces of those comments and the meta.. There was no auto piece about it.
LOL, Dale. I’m tempted to say, not good enough! But I’ll bite my tongue. I mean, my fingers.
And, thanks Bruce.
Bruce
I DO know better. I was trying to be funny.
You and Dan are great.
but google, or blogger… not so much.
A funny little story.
When He Who Must Not Be Named had Dan and I running around blocking any and all of his dozens of user names and IP addressed we sort of inadvertently made the use of the word ‘Jesus’ in a comment spam. Because Mr. M had signed a post that way.
There was really no intent to block discussions of the Sermon on the Mount etc, just an indication of how crazy the game of Whack a Spammer can get if they are really really determined.
Good times??? Not so much.
Bev
actually i would agree with you most of the time.
there is only one subject about which i think i know enough to take myself seriously.
the other times i am just trying to be funny
or play devil’s advocate
or just express my working class sentimentality
because it bothers me that we lose the votes of the people we think we are helping by taking the bait on “hot button” issues.
or as a famous politician once said, “it’s the economy, stupid.”
(no one seems to remember that he was talking to himself.)